I need feminism because...

fatmammycat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Nonsense. I am the one minding the children anyway. Women went into the workforce because of economically driven forces, not feminism.

If it didn't make money for people it wouldn't have happened. Doubly the supply of employees and you get cheaper labour.

Feminists and men's rights groups need to stop with the ideologies of apartheid and start thinking more collaboratively.

That sounds like libertarian claptrap to me; Situations change, war changes the amount of available working people, both male and female: democratic will shaped the employment position too: without feminism and women fighting for our rights, including workers' rights, you would have no need to worry about the payment of children's needs, you simply would hardly be allowed compete with men in the average workforce.

Potatoeman

YumCha wrote: »

The preface to that is "pressures associated with our gender" - and she only mentions 'peers' in relation to them pressuring her schoolfriends into sexual acts.

If the thing that alarms you the most about that statement is that some unidentified unknown "peers" are being falsely accused, then something is really really wrong here.



The photos were part of a Facebook group called "Who needs Feminism UK" which is not specifically teen focussed. And why should anyone, especially a group of 16/17/18 year old girls have to expect to be bullied?

It reads like an accusation which would explain the hostile response. There will always be different social pressures on teenagers but eating disorders are more about the individual than the pressures peers place on them.
It's not alarming, it just seems like she made accusations and didn't like the backlash.

YumCha

Potatoeman wrote: »

It reads like an accusation which would explain the hostile response. There will always be different social pressures on teenagers but eating disorders are more about the individual than the pressures peers place on them.
It's not alarming, it just seems like she made accusations and didn't like the backlash.

I'm going to try this one more time - she didn't say the boys caused eating disorders. I still don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

And if you don't think girls being coerced into sexual acts is alarming, and that the act of victims telling their stories actually justifies backlash then I hope to god that all the women in your life somehow evade being part of the 1 in 5 adult women who will experience sexual assault, lest they come to you for help and you tell them that they need to present evidence.

Femme_Fatale

How is feminism still needed in the West? Genuine question, not being smart. I know there are certain things which affect women simply because of their gender, ditto for men. I'd believe in focusing on both together, rather than it being a case of "Them and us".

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

Not that I have any time for women viewing feminism as a dirty word. I can't stand that attitude.

Potatoeman

YumCha wrote: »

I'm going to try this one more time - she didn't say the boys caused eating disorders. I still don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

And if you don't think girls being coerced into sexual acts is alarming, and that the act of victims telling their stories actually justifies backlash then I hope to god that all the women in your life somehow evade being part of the 1 in 5 adult women who will experience sexual assault, lest they come to you for help and you tell them that they need to present evidence.

I said it reads like an accusation which would explain the backlash. Publishing something that can be interpreted as an accusation will get a response.

Morag

I need Feminism because I have to have conversations about Sult Shaming with my kids.
I need feminism as I have less rights to health care then a man.
I need feminism as I have less control over my fertility then a man.
I need feminism as there are not enough women in our government.
I need feminism as my sexual past will be used to paint me as immoral
and not a credible witness if I ever need to try and report someone for rape or sexual assault.

GalwayGuy2

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

I wonder is it good to call it "Feminism"? To my mind it has it's roots in western politics, and could be perceived as "Western Hegemony".

spurious

Wasn't feminism always a human rights issue?

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

How is feminism still needed in the West? Genuine question, not being smart. I know there are certain things which affect women simply because of their gender, ditto for men. I'd believe in focusing on both together, rather than it being a case of "Them and us".

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

Feminism cannot do anything to stop what is happenning to women in Afghanistan, or to the men who make jokes about Mohammed either.

Also they can't be seen to change too much about Islam for being labelled islamaphobic.

Femme_Fatale

spurious wrote: »

Wasn't feminism always a human rights issue?

So why a focus just on women, why not a focus on all affected due to their gender?

Morag

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Feminism_101

Although improvements have been made, particularly in the last 50-100 years, men and women are not always treated equally. Our society still has systematic biases against women in some regards. Some of these systematic biases against women have the side effect of harming some men, but they are still biases against women.

Lyaiera

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

So why a focus just on women, why not a focus on all affected due to their gender?

Feathers wrote: »

There'll always be a need to address social imbalances, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the need for a feminist movement. Taking chlidcare as an example given — it could be presented as a "women's rights" issue. On the other hand, it could be seen as one affecting stay-at-home parents, gender neutrally.

Moving away from separate, binary men's/women's rights positions is surely a good development.

Are you for real? Let's keep arguing about the name of what we want to do. That'll mean we're certainly able to start working on what we want to happen in about 50 years time or so. Never mind that the first time the issues of child care, bodily and working rights were addressed was with feminism.

It's the same with LGBT rights in the UK. A weird revisionist history where "Stonewall" the gay rights organisation take their name from the Stonewall Riots where women, both cis and trans were instrumental in what happened.

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something. "Feminism" has been arguing for a system where there is equal consideration for women and men for 50 years, more than likely 100 years and probably even longer than that.

If you're only concerned with finding the right name for the argument for equality for everyone then you're not concerned with it at all.

Femme_Fatale

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something.

No it isn't. In the West, feminism was obviously hugely important and valuable and welcome until quite recently, but I think it just reinforces the gender divide now; I'm not saying there aren't issues that affect us because of our gender, but we are not second-class citizens overall like we used to be.

Lyaiera

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

No it isn't. In the West, feminism was obviously hugely important and valuable and welcome until quite recently, but I think it just reinforces the gender divide now; I'm not saying there aren't issues that affect us because of our gender, but we are not second-class citizens overall like we used to be.

So what you're saying is let's abandon the entirety of the good feminism has done, and still does in the name of women who have suffered and instead adopt a new name.

I'm cool with that if you can find a name that would suit. A name that would recognise the historical significance of feminism. And a name that would continue to recognise that it is the supposedly female role in life that is seen as lesser.

clairefontaine

Lyaiera wrote: »

So what you're saying is let's abandon the entirety of the good feminism has done, and still does in the name of women who have suffered and instead adopt a new name.

I'm cool with that if you can find a name that would suit. A name that would recognise the historical significance of feminism. And a name that would continue to recognise that it is the supposedly female role in life that is seen as lesser.

What female role are you referring to?

Lams

Lyaiera wrote: »

Are you for real? Let's keep arguing about the name of what we want to do. That'll mean we're certainly able to start working on what we want to happen in about 50 years time or so. Never mind that the first time the issues of child care, bodily and working rights were addressed was with feminism.

It's the same with LGBT rights in the UK. A weird revisionist history where "Stonewall" the gay rights organisation take their name from the Stonewall Riots where women, both cis and trans were instrumental in what happened.

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something. "Feminism" has been arguing for a system where there is equal consideration for women and men for 50 years, more than likely 100 years and probably even longer than that.

If you're only concerned with finding the right name for the argument for equality for everyone then you're not concerned with it at all.

Lets not kid ourselves, feminism hasn't really been arguing for equal consideration for men and women, it has been arguing for improved rights of women even if those rights advance inequality.

clairefontaine

Lams wrote: »

Lets not kid ourselves, feminism hasn't really been arguing for equal consideration for men and women, it has been arguing for improved rights of women even if those rights advance inequality.

It's been arguing for all sorts of things, like their being no difference between the sexes and wearing skirts is a sign of internalised oppression, that men are redundant, and your husband is a potential rapist.

B0jangles

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's been arguing for all sorts of things, like their being no difference between the sexes and wearing skirts is a sign of internalised oppression, that men are redundant, and your husband is a potential rapist.

Are straw feminists are hiding in YOUR closet?

http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341

We only ask the hard questions most people are TOO AFRAID to ask!

WinterSong

http://areyouafeminist.com/

Feathers

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something.

That's exactly the point I was making, though from the opposite angle - someone was annoyed that young women weren't identifying with the term feminism. So long as the issues themselves get addressed, does it need to be given an umbrella name of "feminism"?

upandcumming

Morag wrote: »

I need feminism as there are not enough women in our government.

How is this a feminist issue?

Legs.Eleven

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

How is feminism still needed in the West? Genuine question, not being smart. I know there are certain things which affect women simply because of their gender, ditto for men. I'd believe in focusing on both together, rather than it being a case of "Them and us".

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

Not that I have any time for women viewing feminism as a dirty word. I can't stand that attitude.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

So why a focus just on women, why not a focus on all affected due to their gender?

I see what you're saying but I'd call myself a feminist along with many other things. I'm not part of any feminist group and when I do go out and protest, I'm protesting for the rights of everyone. I'm not JUST a feminist which probably leads to the question of why I don't just call myself a humanist instead (which I do also) and I suppose I'd answer that by saying I support some feminist causes specifically and acknowledge all that has been done for women right up to now as a woman - but I don't support feminist causes exclusively.

I call myself multiple things and support multiple -isms and I think you'll find that often moderate feminists are often part of many groups. They're often activists generally.

Tbh, the labels grate on me a bit but I also don't want to shun the label as often that's associated with being "anti-feminist" thus anti women (by some people) just as being feminist is associated with hating men by some people. Everyone has their perspective and it's impossible to please everyone. It's a difficult one and labels are often dangerous and as you said, can create divisions. I don't want to be associated with fundamentalists or extremist feminists and I don't want to be associated with the women who are ashamed of their own gender. What's in a label or a name really? I support many causes associated with women (which have been mentioned on this thread) and believe in equal rights for women internationally and acknowledge all that has been done for us...but not exclusively. In fact I concern myself with rights for everyone more often. I go on protests fairly regularly in Madrid but none of them are feminist marches because right now, I believe we have to act as a collective.

I don't actively partake in feminist activities so does that mean I'm not a feminist? I don't know. I still call myself one if someone asks but I don't tell everyone I am when it doesn't come up in conversation.


I live in Spain (as you know ) where there is still a definite need for feminism where sexism is still rife. Obviously nowhere near as bad as the Middle East but as the dictatorship has only ended relatively recently, the mindset of many people and the establishment hasn't had time to catch up. They kind of forced the liberal mindset suddenly instead of there being a natural evolution. Other European countries are the same.

I suppose I'd call myself a humanist which would be an umbrella term which would encompass a load of other "ists" and "isms" including feminism, so calling myself a feminist doesn't preclude me from other concerns.

Links234

upandcumming wrote: »

How is this a feminist issue?

that a huge section of the Irish people are under represented in our government? how is it not?

Morag

upandcumming wrote: »

How is this a feminist issue?

Because it stems from the systematic biases about what women should do and what they are and are not capable of.

Strawberry Swan

Feathers wrote: »

That's exactly the point I was making, though from the opposite angle - someone was annoyed that young women weren't identifying with the term feminism. So long as the issues themselves get addressed, does it need to be given an umbrella name of "feminism"?

Yes, it does need the umbrella term feminism. And that's the key, it's an umbrella term under which all different kinds of feminism exist but uniting them all is the belief that females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender.

In order to talk about feminist issues you need to give it a name. Imagine talking about people you know but not using their name. It makes communicating a lot easier. The issue I think you have with the term feminism is that it must mean you are a man-hating lesbian who doesn't want to wear make-up, or some other crap. I have no doubt that both men and women have this skewed view but it's not reality. Feminism has a long history of incredibly brave women fighting to stand up for the rights that most of us today enjoy. It encompasses different movements such as free-thinkers, the suffragettes, anarcha-feminism (see the great Emma Goldman), women's liberation in the 60's and third wave feminism which is basically today's continuation of women's lib. And that's only a few of the movements from around the world. To be part of that fight for gender equality is something to be very proud of, not ashamed.

And make no mistake, there is still need for it today - in the workplace, in our schools, culturally and socially. All other things being equal, men still get paid more for the same work. Only last year women were allowed to box in the Olympics for the first time thanks to Katie Taylor's fight to have what men had for a long long time.

I am proud to call myself a feminist because I am proud to be a women and I still see and experience inequalities regularly. That's not to say I don't support men's rights too, particularly in relation to children. In the eyes of the law they are seen as second to the mother. But that is a separate issue. Just as gay rights is another issue. Feminism is one of hundreds you could choose to be part of if you so wished. So to anyone who doesn't know what feminism really means, educate yourself so that you can choose to be one or not. If you choose not to be a feminist then one can only assume you actually think females deserve to be treated lesser than males.

runawaybishop

Strawberry Swan wrote: »

If you choose not to be a feminist then one can only assume you actually think females deserve to be treated lesser than males.

What a retarded assumption.

The Corinthian

Strawberry Swan wrote: »

Yes, it does need the umbrella term feminism. And that's the key, it's an umbrella term under which all different kinds of feminism exist but uniting them all is the belief that females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender.

Then why is Feminism so silent (bar some lip service) on issues where females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender, in areas such as parental rights, criminal sentencing, military service or domestic violence, for example?

It doesn't really sell the notion that Feminism is about gender equality when it's only about gender equality to the advantage of one gender.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why is Feminism so silent (bar some lip service) on issues where females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender, in areas such as parental rights, criminal sentencing, military service or domestic violence, for example?

It doesn't really sell the notion that Feminism is about gender equality when it's only about gender equality to the advantage of one gender.

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

TINA1984

Morag wrote: »

Because it stems from the systematic biases about what women should do and what they are and are not capable of.

Are those the same systemic biases that mean it is less likely that ethnic minorities, working class, young people, minority religion etc. aren't represented in the house's of parliament?

Lyaiera

TINA1984 wrote: »

Are those the same systemic biases that mean it is less likely that ethnic minorities, working class, young people, minority religion etc. aren't represented in the house's of parliament?

Yes. It's called "Intersectionality" and it's been a part of feminism since we moved from the Second Wave to the Third Wave.